>> Anyone know the answer to this?:
> - Dave
>> > From: "Coleman, Mike" <COLEMANMI at phibred.com>
> > To: matthews at greengenes.cit.cornell.edu> > Cc: "Hardisty, Marvin" <HARDISTY at phibred.com>
> > Subject: Dave, id AceDB year 2000 compliant?
> > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:41:12 -0500
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > We are running this on Solaris 2.6. Do you know if AceDB itself is
> > compliant? Please advise.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Mike Coleman
>
Richard answered this in January.
An archive for this newsgroup is at:
http://genome-www.stanford.edu/Saccharomyces/AT-acedbbiosci.html
The answer is:
Subject: Re: Y2K bugs in Ace
From: Richard Durbin <rd at sanger.ac.uk>
Date: 26 Jan 1999 23:02:55 -0000
I don't believe there are Y2K problems in acedb code. Obviously the underlying
operating system must be Y2K compliant because it makes system calls. Dates
are stored internally in an acedb-specific format that knows the precision of
the date-time, e.g. day only, seconds, month only etc. These always write
out as 4 digit years, but the parser will recognise 2 digit years, and map
values greater than 50 to 19xx, 50 or less to 20xx. So there is a potential
Y2050 problem there if you use that feature in data. It looks like we set
a maximum year of 2053 anyway, so there is a serious Y2053 problem.
Richard
